Delhi High Court Dismisses AISA President Neha Bora’s Plea, Directs Her to Sign ₹10,000 Bond With Surety to Maintain Peace

The Delhi High Court has dismissed All India Students Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora’s petition challenging a notice requiring her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry following her detention at a protest against the Chief Election Commissioner on October 16.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order on October 23, said adequate safeguards were in place and directed the Special Executive Magistrate to provide Bora with all relevant material before passing any order in the proceedings.

Why Neha Bora Challenged the Notice

Bora challenged a notice issued on October 17 under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). The provisions deal with preventive proceedings and bonds intended to prevent breaches of peace.

The petition sought to quash the notice and the proceedings arising from it, besides restraining authorities from taking coercive action against her.

Bora argued that the notice failed to identify material showing that her actions were likely to cause a breach of peace, which she said was a necessary condition for initiating preventive proceedings.

What Happened During the October 16 Protest

According to the petition, Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner.

She alleged that police detained her around 5.30 pm, took her to an undisclosed location and subsequently brought her to R.K. Puram Police Station. She claimed she was held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17.

The notice, which she received on October 18, cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegations that she had instigated people to participate in the October 16 protest at Connaught Place.

Arguments Before the Court

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the protest was peaceful and that she had never called for violence. He also submitted that seeking regime change was legitimate in a democracy.

Sankaranarayanan contended that the notice had been issued mechanically, arguing that a preliminary inquiry was necessary before seeking an interim bond.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma opposed the plea, submitting that Section 126 allowed a broad assessment based on the information received by the authorities.

Court Emphasises Safeguards in the Inquiry

Justice Prasad said the proceedings included adequate safeguards and stressed that the Special Executive Magistrate must take care to provide Bora with the relevant material before deciding the matter.

The court's dismissal of the petition allows the challenged proceedings to continue, subject to the safeguards and directions indicated in its order.